Tuesday, March 19, 2013

... men and women are interchangeable
men and women are interchangeable
men and women are interchangeable
men and ...

Oh. Excuse me. I was right in the middle of my daily progressivist chant, a discipline I regularly practice in order to keep certain truths firmly planted in my consciousness so that I don't begin to doubt them on account of, well, you know, the actual evidence.

I have had to be particularly intentional about it over the last week or so because of the spate of news stories about women in the military, where it makes it sound as if it is not the Shangri-La we all know it to be.

I mean, if men and women are really the same, and we know this to be true according to our liberal ideology, then how can sexual harassment be such a problem in the military? Sexual harassment wasn't a problem when only men were in close contact for extended periods of time with men; so why is it a problem now that men are in close contact for long periods of time with women?

Here is the Huffington Post on the alleged problem:

According to the most recent report by the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, 3,192 sexual assaults were reported out of an estimated 19,000 -- roughly 52 a day -- between Oct. 1, 2010, to Sept. 31, 2011. The department estimates that only roughly 14 percent of the assaults were reported. The majority of sexual assaults each year are committed against service members by service members, SAPRO reports. While MSA does not affect only women, the office characterizes the "vast majority" of victims as female junior enlists under the age of 25, and the "vast majority" of perpetrators as male, older (under the age of 35) and generally higher-ranking.

Are we really supposed to believe that practically all the sexual harassment charges are by women against men--not men against women? We know this can't be in a world where everyone is equal. Next thing you know people will start suggesting that women are more likely than men to be raped when taken prisoner.

Right. Like we're going to believe that.

We all know that even when it gets down to the dust and sweat and blood of the battlefield, there are limits that even the most barbaric enemy would never transgress. Women in combat may have to contend with on the battlefield is being shot or blown up, but thank God the enemy would never even think to pinch them on the bottom.

Besides, wouldn't that violate the Geneva Convention or something?

Poisonous gas attacks our gals can handle. Let's just be thankful they will never be the target of unwelcome sexual remarks.

Sure, the enemy will use guns, mortars, grenades, and rockets. But create a hostile work environment? Even they wouldn't stoop to that.

Let's just all pray that America's military, staffed increasingly by what some people apparently think is the "weaker sex," might not be brought to its knees by the threat of being winked at.

Simper Fi.

UPDATE: For the functionally illiterate, there is a further explanation of this post here.

'...3,192 sexual assaults were reported out of an estimated 19,000 -- roughly 52 a day -- between Oct. 1, 2010, to Sept. 31, 2011. The department estimates that only roughly 14 percent of the assaults were reported.'

and what you then said:

'Let's just all pray that America's military, staffed increasingly by what some people apparently think is the "weaker sex," might not be brought to its knees by the threat of being winked at.'

So, Martin, Lee, Old Rebel et al. are convinced that men cannot help but commit all manner of sexual assault, given even the slightest opportunity. The far-right contingent here would be very comfortable in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, where women are required to remove themselves from the public sphere (lest the males lose control of their otherwise devout selves).

Martin at least offers a wee bit of insight into the decisions of the Catholic Church to keep women out of positions of authority. Heck, priests cannot help but molest children; just think of the debauchery were women and men to share the priesthood. Those poor male priests cannot possibly be expected to contain their basest urges.

There you go again, committing the fallacy of composition (as small minority of priests are pedophiles, therefore they all are).

But more importantly, you missed the entire point of the post (You really need to expand that very narrow scientistic mind of yours).

How can liberals maintain at one and the same time that women are the equals of men and then turn right around and say that they are somehow uniquely susceptible to the sexual predations of men in a way that men are not susceptible to the similar predations of women?

Keep on point here. You seem to have picked up a little of Singrings ADHD.

'How can liberals maintain at one and the same time that women are the equals of men and then turn right around and say that they are somehow uniquely susceptible to the sexual predations of men in a way that men are not susceptible to the similar predations of women?'

Oh dear me. Not content with equating sexual assault with a bit of winking, Martin now wants to tell us that all through his substantial education and studies of logic and literture, he has never become aware of the fact that there is a difference between the use of 'equal' as in 'equal rights for men and women' and the 'equal' as in 2 'equals' 2.

I don't know of any liberal, conservative, independent or anyone else that would ever claim that men and women are identical in every respect. If you can point me towards any such person, I will be happy in denouncing their lunacy right here with you.

What every liberal I have ever met is arguing is that men and women should enjoy *equal rights* and the entire argument about the military has been that if any man or woman is able to pass all the rigorous tests and training required to be an active duty member of combat military, then they should have to right to be just that.

And they should be safe from being raped on the job.

That should be as obvious as anything in the world, yet here you are pretending you don't understand these distinctions and instead yuck it up about women who are in dangerous combat shouldn;t complain about being 'pinched in the bottom' once in a while.

Once again, remarkable behaviour for a logician.

But I really shouldn't be complaining.

With this kind of attitude, the Republican party is certain not to win another election anytime within the next few decades. So good news for liberals! Keep up the good work!

About that equal rights thing, Singring. Right now only American males at age 18 are required to register for the Selective Service, formerly known as the Draft Board. Make no mistake, America's volunteer army would quickly return to conscription if circumstances would dictate. Even if one in tens of thousands of women could meet all requirements of combat units, the question still remains...what real value is added to the job function of dangerous combat by accommodating a woman to such an environment? Finally, as to equal rights, if America returned to conscription, then shouldn't all 18 year old American girls still be subject to call up, even if not in combat?

'Finally, as to equal rights, if America returned to conscription, then shouldn't all 18 year old American girls still be subject to call up, even if not in combat?'

I grew up in Germany where we actually had conscription (only for men). When I turned 18, I chose to conscientiously object and do a year (9 months) of civil service for the Red Cross instead.

As to your question: Yes, I think that women and men should be subjected to the same rules in this context and it would then be up for the draft boards to make a decision as to who is fit for service.

These issues go hand in hand.

However, I personally would not be too outraged of women were not required to be drafted - just because I think there should be equal rights doesn't necessarily demand that there are equal duties.

For example, I think everyone should have the right to free speech (equal rights), but people should pay a different percentage of tax depending on their income (inequal duties). That is a perfectly sensible approach to my eyes.

...what real value is added to the job function of dangerous combat by accommodating a woman to such an environment?'

The real value is that we have equal rights in society! I'm really surprised I need to be making this point to someone who lives in a country which is supposed to be the land of the free with liberty for all - something conservatives like to go on and on about as if it were self-evident. Well, no, if someone who wants to be serving in combat and is fit to do so is told 'no you can't', that isn't really freedom, now is it?

And what do you mean by 'accomodating'? In the context of this post Martin has written, all we need to do is protect women from rape and sexual assault and harassment. That should be an obvious moral imperative anyway.